>You probably think identity theft is a customer's problem, not the bank too.

Huh? I'm relaying what the law considers civil asset forfeiture to be. It's not my opinion and it is not a "narrative". In fact, here's some commentary addressing the issue I raised.

"Technically, civil asset forfeiture involves a government lawsuit against the personal property itself or, in legal terms, `in rem`. As strange as it may seem, the inanimate property, whether a yacht or a bag of cash, is the defendant in such a proceeding." --- (https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-civ...)

If you don't believe that, maybe you'd believe the Justice Department on issue:

"Civil Judicial Forfeiture: In rem (against the property) court proceeding brought against property that was derived from or used to commit an offense, rather than against a person who committed an offense." --- (https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture)

What you ignored is the only opinion I expressed and the context of that expression: "Still, I would argue that the property owner's rights are often violated is such actions." How does this square with anything about identify theft responsibility?

> It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should never have been considered reasonable.

Actually, the historical origin of civil asset forfeiture has some rational basis, though, as with most sensible legal moves, gets corrupted by those willing to exploit the letter of the law in spite of its spirit.

Nonetheless, unless there's something I'm missing I don't find your retort particularly coherent. I urge you to reread the original comment to which I replied and my reply and try again.